Why do some people see the world in black and white/simplistic terms?

[Halibut]

Can what someone thinks ever be regarded as a crime?

 

Can a comment like that really be taken seriously??

 

I'd like to think it's an interesting question that invites some discussion.

[Rioja]

Surely just thinking about something can never be a crime.

[Alien]

Surely just thinking about something can never be a crime.

 

 

 

Well of course it can't reoja, and most sensible thinkers would agree...By it's definition it can't, it's a thought. Now if you take it to the next level (sharing) then that's a whole new ballgame.

The only person that could see thoughts as a crime would be the person thinking. Although some would have us believe that everyone should be privy to everyone's thoughts...until it's their turn of course.

[*_ash_*]

If you follow the posts back to when Harleyman pulled me up on the hypothetical I gave in the OP about pedophiles you'll see that actually it is an issue of seeing things black and white that needs to be addressed.

 

I wasn't responding to you when I quoted you.. I was quoting you to highlight that you didn't appear to be condoning, or unconcerned about it.

[danot]

But the Sun article in question asked it's readers to sexualise and fantasise about seeing a 15 year old get her clothes off. Are you saying that those who saw the 15 year old's picture and desired to see her breasts are paedos but those that then went and bought a copy of the paper a day later when she had her boobs out are not? Black and White? See?

There has to be a clear definition.. a rule of thumb, a line, so to speak, where the 15 year old reaches the age of legal consent to do anything.

 

If they're not concerned about it.. then i'd say they were comfortable.

 

Regarding Max's post. It's obviously the first line that draws you in[should a 15 year old girl... It's wording is meant to offend.

like I pointed out here, we automatically think about a 15 year old girl, not a girl of legal consent.. its word play intended to offend.

[Halibut]

There has to be a clear definition.. a rule of thumb, a line, so to speak, where the 15 year old reaches the age of legal consent to do anything.

 

like I pointed out here, we automatically think about a 15 year old girl, not a girl of legal consent.. its word play intended to offend.

 

You are again missing the point by some distance.

The OP is asking you to try and consider the notion that not everything can be seen in black and white terms.

In Rioja's example of the 15/16 year old topless model - what actually changes in the mind of the man?

 

Is his lust to see her naked on the day before her 16th birthday wrong, deviant and paedophilic , but completely acceptable on and after the 16th birthday?

[Alien]

There has to be a clear definition.. a rule of thumb, a line, so to speak, where the 15 year old reaches the age of legal consent to do anything.

 

like I pointed out here, we automatically think about a 15 year old girl, not a girl of legal consent.. its word play intended to offend.

 

So the legal definition at 15 makes one normal but 14 and 364 days makes one a paedophile?

[danot]

Hmmmm! I often think about killing someone. That must make me a murderer so I had better turn myself in for prosecution. Silly mis-logic.

 

If you stop to think about it - the OP does make you wonder ....

 

 

I know exactly what point the OP is addressing, ive raised it myself in another thread, and I agree with him on everything but this.

[Halibut]

I know exactly what point the OP is addressing, ive raised it myself in another thread, and I agree with him on everything but this.

 

It would be really useful if we could explore the reasons why we differ - can you comment on my example a little further up the page?

[Treatment]

People on benefits should get a job.

 

People who are depressed should cheer up.

 

Some MPs fiddled expenses therefore all MPs are corrupt.

 

Some people who are sexually attracted to children become abusers therefore pedophiles are evil.

 

The Soviet Union was a failure, therefore socialism doesn't work.

 

Islamic fundamentalism is responsible for certian acts of terrorism, therefore Muslims are evil.

 

The BNP attract neo-nazi thugs therefore the BNP should be banned.

 

Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people therefore criticism of Israeli foreign policy is anti-semitic.

 

Brrrrrr, therefore global warming is a myth.

 

People who read the Guardian are Labour supporters.

 

Daily Mail readers are all immigrant hating racists.

 

Drugs can be harmful, therefore drugs should be illegal.

 

Saddam was a brutal dictator, therefore the Iraq war was justified.

 

Many people made it into work during the worst of the snow, therefore people who didn't should be sacked.

 

People who highlight US atrocities are anti-American or terrorist sympathisers.

 

People who suspect external influence over government policy or collusion among powerful private entities are nutty conspiracy theorists.

 

Green Party supporters are tree huggers.

 

Students are parasitic layabouts.

 

Immigrants get a free ride, steals all our jobs and rapes our women (ok that last accusation is rarely made but you get the idea...)

 

Can I just say, it's really not as simples as that

 

Perhaps because they know what they like, and they like what they know.